I wrote longer response but then I lost it, so I'm just going to quickly simplify it.
The two state solution is what we have now, and it means Palestine is forced to live in a permanently degraded state of sovereignty. Sovereignty is the key cornerstone of international relations, as is deterrence (live and let live, as you call it). This is not a holy war, this is a colonial war over the autonomy and self-determination of a people, the Palestinian people.
Thus, if you truly believe in equal rights for the Palestinians in a two state solution, you need to ask yourself this:
Would you allow the Palestinians to form their own army? Import weapons from Iran? Build their own air force with bombers? Many of their officers would undoubtedly be Hamas veterans, you wouldn't get to exclude them from serving their new country either, could you accept that?
You say you don't want forced resettlement, a laudable ideal to be sure, but you can't have no forced resettlements and a hard border because of the Zionist settlements. Go look at a map, there is no border line to be drawn between them, they are scattered around the whole of Palestinian territory. Those settlements are their for the express purpose of denying the Palestinians their freedom of movement and critical resources and infrastructure, so they would have to go.
Would you let the Palestinian army evict those settlers if they refused? Would you let them defend their new borders, with lethal force if necessary? And how about the people who have already been forcibly resettled, the Palestinian refugees? They're still alive, waiting to come back, what about their homes? Even if somehow a general peace treaty was signed to settle all these messy issues at once, would you really expect either side to just take eachother's word for it? Would the Zionists turn over their illegal nuclear weapons? And allow Palestinians to inspect sensitive facilities to ensure their destruction?
You don't have to like these things, but you would have to accept them, because they are the rights afforded to every sovereign nation.
I can tell you now the Zionists would never accept these conditions, it would be incredible blow to their colonial project. Maybe under extreme international pressure and isolation, but then you have the lingering tension between the two states that lasts for who knows how long. A two state solution is basically impossible, the Zionists made it impossible over decades. So in my opinion alright then, you made this bed, you fucking lay in it now: a single state is the only way forward now. A single state from the river to the sea, so that all of the people victimized by this colonial project may move towards a brighter, more peaceful future. I will never apologize for saying that, despite the recriminations of the zionists and the propaganda of their collaborators. There would in fact be less chance of war and genocide than with two states. However, you couldn't call it a Jewish (ethno)state anymore. But the Jews living there would still get to stay there, what's more important?
Honestly, the Zionists wouldn't accept that either, but they need to humble themselves and accept something, because they are marching the entire region toward a massive conflagration that will engulf and destroy them eventually.
I wrote longer response but then I lost it, so I'm just going to quickly simplify it.
The two state solution is what we have now, and it means Palestine is forced to live in a permanently degraded state of sovereignty. Sovereignty is the key cornerstone of international relations, as is deterrence (live and let live, as you call it). This is not a holy war, this is a colonial war over the autonomy and self-determination of a people, the Palestinian people.
Thus, if you truly believe in equal rights for the Palestinians in a two state solution, you need to ask yourself this:
Would you allow the Palestinians to form their own army? Import weapons from Iran? Build their own air force with bombers? Many of their officers would undoubtedly be Hamas veterans, you wouldn't get to exclude them from serving their new country either, could you accept that?
You say you don't want forced resettlement, a laudable ideal to be sure, but you can't have no forced resettlements and a hard border because of the Zionist settlements. Go look at a map, there is no border line to be drawn between them, they are scattered around the whole of Palestinian territory. Those settlements are their for the express purpose of denying the Palestinians their freedom of movement and critical resources and infrastructure, so they would have to go.
Would you let the Palestinian army evict those settlers if they refused? Would you let them defend their new borders, with lethal force if necessary? And how about the people who have already been forcibly resettled, the Palestinian refugees? They're still alive, waiting to come back, what about their homes? Even if somehow a general peace treaty was signed to settle all these messy issues at once, would you really expect either side to just take eachother's word for it? Would the Zionists turn over their illegal nuclear weapons? And allow Palestinians to inspect sensitive facilities to ensure their destruction?
You don't have to like these things, but you would have to accept them, because they are the rights afforded to every sovereign nation.
I can tell you now the Zionists would never accept these conditions, it would be incredible blow to their colonial project. Maybe under extreme international pressure and isolation, but then you have the lingering tension between the two states that lasts for who knows how long. A two state solution is basically impossible, the Zionists made it impossible over decades. So in my opinion alright then, you made this bed, you fucking lay in it now: a single state is the only way forward now. A single state from the river to the sea, so that all of the people victimized by this colonial project may move towards a brighter, more peaceful future. I will never apologize for saying that, despite the recriminations of the zionists and the propaganda of their collaborators. There would in fact be less chance of war and genocide than with two states. However, you couldn't call it a Jewish (ethno)state anymore. But the Jews living there would still get to stay there, what's more important?
Honestly, the Zionists wouldn't accept that either, but they need to humble themselves and accept something, because they are marching the entire region toward a massive conflagration that will engulf and destroy them eventually.